Since when do cars have black boxes anyway?
:shrug: I’d love to see those cases. Until then, I’m skeptical.
Absolutely, which is why it’s a bit early for outrage, in my opinion.
Double shrug
I taint claiming no hard facts here butt…
You think I am just making stuff up?
I have a terrible memory…but if I hear something that makes me go wow or goes against what I would logically think was right, that stuff does tend to stick in my mind.
Near as I can tell his fault is that he was stopped legally in traffic and she was too fucking hammered to see he was there.
Sure. That’s very common in court proceedings. One side says X and the other says Y. Without studying the evidence, it’s often difficult to know who’s right and who’s wrong.
So what? The apparent fact that the truck was uninsured is irrelevant to the question of the driver’s degree of responsibility, as far as I can see.
I suspect that the judgment would not bar a negligence claim against the truck driver. The jury verdict presumably means that Shelton was criminally culpable in her boyfriend’s death. I don’t think it necessarily follows that she was solely responsible for the crash.
Actually, my point was that the drunk driver and the sober driver might both end up being held partly responsible in a civil proceeding. As far as I know.
Cite ?
My guess is that your memory is off.
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 33.
She is claiming the other driver was at fault. The fact that she was drunk does not mean the other driver could not be at fault. The courts will decide who is right. I can’t see the problem.
A person can be scum and still be owed $200 by an upstanding citizen.
Yes, but it’s the girl’s lawyer who is trying to make that relevant.
Of course, but it’s going to be extremely difficult to convince a jury in a civil matter that the truck driver is at fault given her conviction and all the damning evidence.
We’re still talking about Texas, right?
That’s pretty much correct. In Texas, a criminal offense of intoxication manslaughter happens if you drive while intoxicated and someone dies by accident or mistake as a result of that intoxication. The fact that there was a concurrent cause that contributed to the death won’t absolve the defendant of criminal responsibility, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor was clearly insufficient.
As the law is written, it’s possible to imagine a set of facts that could see both the intoxicated driver and another party liable for a death. Say an intoxicated driver speeds up to 55 in a 35 mph zone to make a stale yellow light, and another driver runs a crossways redlight doing 80 in a 35 mph zone, killing a passenger in the first car. The intoxicated driver can be found guilty of intoxication manslaughter, but that won’t necessarily let the second driver completely off the hook in a civil trial; it’s possible they’ll share some proportion of responsibility.
Relevant to the issue of civil responsibility? I don’t get that out of the article linked to in the OP.
Can you quote the part you get that from?
True enough.
53 posts assembling a reasonable effort to get to the heart of the matter without being derailed by ignorant bigotry. Not bad, but nowhere near the goal now, is it?
Fuck off dickhead. 
Oh, sorry. It’s not in the article of the OP, I was reading something from an ABC affiliate that gave more details about the background of the suit.
This is what’s happening: in addition to the truck driver, there are four insurance companies being sued. Shelton was driving her mother’s SUV, and her mother had protection of uninsured motorists. If they can prove that someone else is at fault, her mother’s insurance will cover her medical costs, legal fees, the “pain and suffering” as well as pay for the SUV.
The legal analyst for the affiliate has said:
ETA: There was also something about no insurance payout if the claimant was involved in an illegal activity, but I can’t find the cite I was looking at and would like to know what that was about.
Can somebody answer something for me? Is testimony from the criminal trial admissible as evidence in the civil trial? Like there are court records of sworn eye witness testimony that says she crossed two lanes and hit the truck, so are you allowed to enter that into evidence or do you have to drag all these people back into the courtroom?